The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 19, 2009, 06:49 AM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
I think enemy combatants have the same rights afforded them

under the Geneva convention... the issue was that the folks at Gitmo don't even have those. Once the smoke clears and the 'enemy' is trusted up and made secure they should have those rights and I'll die with a gun in my hand before you convince me differently.. doesn't matter who that enemy is or what they are 'alleged' to have done to get there.

I find if kind of funny that every dern little thing the fed government does now that we on these gun forums find offensive is the fault of B.O. even though I consider myself a liberal, I didn't vote for him and don't really think most of what his party is trying to do will help much... I still find it hard to blame him for everything that is going down. Kind of like blaming G.W.B. for Katrina.
blume357 is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 08:27 PM   #27
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,331
as of this pm (pacific time)

according to one of the talk radio pundits I listened to on my way home from work, the administration has withdrawn any plans to disarm pilots.

Quite probably one of those trial balloons, which they fly to draw flak. Since it did, the drop the idea, at least, for now.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 10:36 AM   #28
Evan Thomas
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,181
Originally Posted by Kmar40
That's a D- or F answer even for an undergrad conlaw course. Again, cite a case or at least an accepted constitutional theory.
The US did ratify all the Conventions, with the exception of the protocols of 1977, and they are binding on US conduct on foreign battlefields.

As to my point about the supremacy clause giving treaties equal standing with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, I stand by what I wrote, and I'm in fairly good company: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., for one, took the same position (cf. his opinion in Missouri v. Holland, 1920), and I think he probably did OK in "con law."

So, yes, I'd say that the provisions of the Geneva Convention have the same status ("supreme law of the land") as those of the Constitution. I'm perfectly aware that the supremacy clause is anathema to "black-helicopter" xenophobes, but they need to get over it: Article 6 is what it is.

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
The US has ratified several of the Geneva conventions, but has not ratified the two protocols added in 1977 because the US did not agree with them.

Care to guess who and/or what the un-ratified 1977 protocols cover?

Something defined as "unlawful combatants" and "terrorists".
Mmm. Defined, just lately, by Mr. Bush and his cohorts.

You're correct, of course, that the US signed but did not ratify the 1977 protocols. The other countries to have failed to ratify them are Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey (which I think ratified 2 but not 1), so the US is in some really good company on this one...
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 01:42 PM   #29
Mike Irwin
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 39,212
Hey, everyone...

Let's all tread lightly with the "cute" and "cagey" Nazi style titles, accusations of communist sympathies, etc., OK?

As in, don't use them at all, OK?

If that's all you have to round out your message, you don't have a message, OK?
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old March 23, 2009, 12:42 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2007
Posts: 1,545

There just doesn't seem to be any basis of fact whatsoever. But then that would explain why this is an op-ed and not an article.
"America is Great because America is Good; If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be Great!". - Dwight D. Eisenhower
SecDef is offline  
Old March 23, 2009, 12:59 PM   #31
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for private companies to have their private employees trained and certified to carry a firearm? Let the airlines foot the bill.
When an airliner that is commandeered by suicidal hijackers, that airplane then becomes a guided cruise missile. And as seen by the example of 9/11, these cruise missiles are primarily aimed at high-value public and government buildings. If we allow airline companies to foot the bill for their own training programs, eventually these airlines will cut costs and curtail profit loss by slashing "certain" programs as they see fit. This program could very well be one of the first to be reduced or cut altogether. The federal government doesnt allow the airline companies free reign to regulate and oversee themselves when it comes to maintenance and safety policies. Why would we allow them to oversee their carry program?
Creature is offline  
Old March 23, 2009, 08:47 PM   #32
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,331
And the other side of the coin...

If we allow airline companies to foot the bill for their own training programs, eventually these airlines will cut costs and curtail profit loss by slashing "certain" programs as they see fit.
Balanced against the federal bureaucracy making a "training program" so cumbersome and costly to the individual pilots and flight crew that they will not take the training? Balanced against federal "guidelines" or rules requiring the handling of a loaded gun multiple times each flight? Balanced against a mandated "safe storage" mechanism that actually increases the risk of an accidental discharge? etc.

The simple truth of the matter is that individuals and groups who apparently disagreed with the matter of pilots having access to firearms (being armed) added so much junk into the "requirements" as to discourage pilots from completing the "necessary training", and added a host of other potentially dangerous requirements in order to have onboard firearms stored "safely". This is a documented fact, and has been discussed at length, both on this board and elsewhere.

So we are left with the choice of allowing the airlines to determine an efficient and cost effective program that meets basic safety parameters (and risking financially strapped airlines canceling the program when convienient to their bottom line), the bloated cumbersome and possibly dangerous govt concieved program as it currently exists, OR unarmed pilots.

Somehow, the simple common sense approach desired by the American people got lost in the shuffle.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 28, 2009, 01:32 AM   #33
Junior member
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Orlando
Posts: 62
You're absolutely right! The U.S. constitution doesn't mean anything! Allowing people a right to a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty?! You're right, that isn't what this country is about anymore, just thank George W. for that.
Gitmo is a prison for prisoners of war. POWs. They are NOT U.S. citizens and are therefore not given the same rights as a U.S. citizen. How exactly can you prove your innocence when you're captured after opening fire on US/coalition troops or wiring an IED?

Considering the way our people are treated by foreign enemies, they've got it made in the shade down there in Cuba. But that's not enough for the bleeding hearts. They think we should have takeout delivered to their cell from the establishment of their choice. They think we should offer them HBO and other PPV channels. Hell, why don't we throw in a spa and swimming pool?

EDIT: one more thing... How do you exactly feel about Guantanamo Bay being closed down?

Since we took possession of it, all captured enemies have been put there. If we can't put them there, where can we? How about your back yard? No? I don't want them in mine either.
LoneWolf22056 is offline  
Old March 28, 2009, 09:41 AM   #34
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 26
If we allow airline companies to foot the bill for their own training programs, eventually these airlines will cut costs and curtail profit loss by slashing "certain" programs as they see fit.
If you left it up to the airlines, there would be no pilots carrrying guns. It has nothing to do with the cost, its a liability issue. If a terrorist takes control of a plane and does a lot of damage, the airline is not likely to be liable. But if the plane should crash as the result of a gunfight on board involving a pilot - the case will come before a jury which is likely to contain a number of hoplophobes - and the airline gets whacked - for trying to protect its passengers. Ain't our legal system wonderful?

The airlines are listening to their lawyers, the politicians are playing politics, and it appears that the only folks who really care about the passengers are the pilots. But then the pilots are in the same boat - uhhh airplane.
bugs is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07859 seconds with 7 queries